Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 02:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will review soon! Ruby 2010/2013 02:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• "The antagonism was largely caused by Edward's preference for his new favourites, Hugh Despenser the Younger and his father by the same name" Can probably delete "by the same name" (the Earl of Winchester's link is enough, I think)

• Fixed

Family background and early years

• Edward I -> Edward I of England on first mention

• Fixed

• With all the Edwards, make sure you make it easy for casual readers (i.e. "In August 1306 Edward signed a charter..." Make Edward I to help distinguish from son)

• Added a couple of these, where it could be confusing.

• Link to Edmund, 2nd Earl of Cornwall and Thomas of Brotherton, 1st Earl of Norfolk

• Linked Thomas of Brotherton, 1st Earl of Norfolk. Edmund, 2nd Earl of Cornwall, is not mentioned in the article; this is the Edmund who's the subject of the article, and needs no link.

• Isn't Edmund, 2nd Earl of Cornwall the same Edmund as the one mentioned in "He probably intended to give the earldom of Norfolk to Thomas, while Edmund would receive the earldom of Cornwall, which had been left vacant after Edward I's cousin Edmund died without children in 1300"? Ruby 2010/2013 22:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My bad; I forgot I wrote that! Fixed. Lampman (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civil war

• There's that "by the same name" again. I would just say "his father Hugh Despenser the Elder"

• Fixed

• Wikilink Welsh Marches

• Fixed

• "Even with Lancaster out of the picture" sounds un-encyclopedic. Maybe, "Even with Lancaster defeated..."

• Fixed

• Not sure "contrariants" is the best word to use here; thoughts?

• Changed to "rebels".

Scotland and France

• 14 October -> 14 October 1322

• Fixed

• 30 May -> 30 May 1323

• Fixed

Other

• As far as I can see, Davies isn't cited, nor is Keen

• Removed

• You could also be consistent with the page numbers (pp. 556–7 vs pp. 197–198 for instance)

• Think I've got all of these now.

• The lead statement "Though he was officially exonerated, Edmund did not enjoy a great reputation during his life and afterwards, due to his unreliable political dealings." does not reflect the article body. Is there enough historiography of Edmund to warrant a new section?

• I wasn't able to find much, but I added a short paragraph at the bottom.

Not a lot to nitpick here; it is a well-written, clear article that describes a fascinating period of history. Good use of varied sources, no dab or image problems. I'll place the article on hold for seven days. Please respond back on this page when you have finished editing. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 04:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Article looks good. Nice work! Ruby 2010/2013 07:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]